I agree with everyone that there were clearly rock 'n' roll bands before the Beatles. And certainly there were bands that stuck to that same sound even after the Beatles changed their sound to move away from the traditional "rock 'n' roll" sound (not that they could ever rock half as hard as the Sonics). BUT... one point I think we're missing here... am I to understand that Michael Kaiser hasn't heard of Little Steven? Steve Van Zandt? Of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band? Michael Kaiser said:

When folks make ignorant claims like that it's either that they are trying to be sensational, and thus cementing their status as "expert", or they only know - and are concerned with - mainstream popular culture.

I stick with my tired & worn-out assertion that most folks don't really care too much about music (except in the socially acceptable, "clique-ish" manner of a college student), and even more don't know very much about the vast wealth of recorded music that is available.

I would think a more educated statement would have gone along the lines of "There were millions of Rock 'N' Roll groups throughout the world until The Beatles watered it down to something that parents could dig. Thus they (The Beatles) killed Rock 'N' Roll! You can thank The Beatles for Steely Dan et al."

*edited to note that I don't know Little Steven, nor have I ever heard his radio show. So it's nothing personal - It can't be; I just think that that quote is odd.

Momentary lapse of judgement because his bandana was on too tightly. Michael Kaiser said:

Out of curiosity how did you get all that out of that quote? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and admittedly I'm not too clever, not did I read the article or the quote on his page. Did Kopper take that out of context? When I read something that starts with "February 8, 1964, there was not one single rock 'n' roll band in the country" I can't fit all of what you have embellished in there. I understand hyperbole. That quote makes for terrible hyperbole.

Help me out, because I love giving the benefit of the doubt!


Kevin Schneider said:

Obviously... He meant they were few and far between, although the claim that they were few and far between is not entirely true either. There were just a lot more on February 10.

And I also don't think he has trying to indicate that there had not ever been American rock and roll groups prior to 1964, just that there weren't many in early 1964.

Out of curiosity how did you get all that out of that quote? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and admittedly I'm not too clever, not did I read the article or the quote on his page. Did Kopper take that out of context? When I read something that starts with "February 8, 1964, there was not one single rock 'n' roll band in the country" I can't fit all of what you have embellished in there. I understand hyperbole. That quote makes for terrible hyperbole. Help me out, because I love giving the benefit of the doubt! Kevin Schneider said:

Obviously... He meant they were few and far between, although the claim that they were few and far between is not entirely true either. There were just a lot more on February 10.

And I also don't think he has trying to indicate that there had not ever been American rock and roll groups prior to 1964, just that there weren't many in early 1964.

Obviously, he was exagerating when he said there were NO groups. He meant they were few and far between, although the claim that they were few and far between is not entirely true either. There were just a lot more on February 10. And I also don't think he has trying to indicate that there had not ever been American rock and roll groups prior to 1964, just that there weren't many in early 1964. So groups that existed in 1955 or 1958 are irrelevant to the discussion. Also solo artists are irrelevant to the discussion as they are not groups. The Kingsmen version of Louie Louie was by a group and was came out in April 0f '63, and influenced many American teens to pick up a guitar well before the Beatles but still within the general time frame being discussed. And the Kingsmen weren't even the first group to record the song in the early 60s. Not to mention the Kingsmen were only one part of a thriving and active northwest music scene and that there were hundreds of other bands across the country releaseing singles and/or playing at clubs/dances/parties/garages/basements/drive-ins.

I'm with Michael Kaiser on this...

Little Steven is a dork. He practically ruined The Sonics show in Seattle last year by going on and on with masturbatory guitar licks...

I can think if a dozen great bands before the Beatles played Ed Sullivan. Were they popular? Not so much. Were they killer? Hell yeah!

Just off the top of my head - Link Wray, The Wailers, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry...

I just picked up this: Elijah Wald's How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music. I hope to get to it this week after I finish Sonic Boom, a history of the northwest rock 'n' roll scene. I might send Little Steven some copies, or at least the Cliffs Notes versions. Yeah, there's no denying The Beatles defined what a traditional teenage rock 'n' roll band could be and galvanized the teenage rock 'n' roll landscape. However, some of my favorite rock 'n' roll thrived between the demise of the first wave of r'n'r stars and the onset of the British Invasion. I've heard that era called Kennedy Pop. Whatever the name, there were tons of exciting sounds bubbling up all over the country, and I hate to see it dismissed because it wasn't as "thoughtful" as later-period Beatles experimentations. As for The Beatles, I'll take "Twist and Shout" and "It Won't Be Long" over anything from Sgt. Peppers. Just a reflection of my taste in music. I've never been a big fan of psyche, freakbeat, or its offshoots. Some of it works for me, but usually the frilly embellishments leave me cold. Plus all the ridiculous lights shows, day-glo, and lava lamps just seem over the top.

He could've very easily stated instead: February 8, 1964, there were only a handful of... or very few... rock 'n' roll band in the country. February 9, the Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show. ...but he didn't. He said there was not one single rock'n'roll band... and whether he was trying to make a point or not, he's wrong. And he's obviously proud of that quote as he has it posted on his Facebook page, which furthers my point. How many people that like his show will read that and take it as gospel? Probably far too many! It's misguided. That is exactly the sort of mainstream perspective or generality that pisses me off. It wouldn't be any different (in other words, just as wrong) if he'd made the same statement about bands of this decade.

Also gotten that one! Hahah. Wasn't also meaning to attack the guy, I don't have any particular aggression towards him, besides not really kowing his programme or whatnot. It's just you know... the topic really. Was riled up... If he knows about other bands of the time, which I guess he does, he could also give them a namedrop and not let a new breed of readers step into the puddle of just taking that quote as not only hyperbole but eternal truth or something. He could've guided the direction at what else was going on, like: "Yeah, they were hitmakers that got copied by hundreds but, there was also...." It's just that "The bands on TV are the bands that you see" thing. I cut into too big a pie here I guess, so please let this drop as I CAN'T go into more detail and am way off the topic that KOPPER was looking to get responses for. But isn't it a thing of the audience to go after the bands and their shows and records, not wait for promotions and commercials to come towards them, so that there is a broader basic recognition of what all is happening? That's why I dig this place, lot's of info and not the usual BlahBLah. The people back then had to rely on the system of promotion to get their music across the nation, into their local homes as we all know. And also that "watered down" thing that Mike brought up explains it quite well for me. By doing so you reach a lot of people on the lowest common denominator. Of course the bigger you get the larger the group of people that will remember you, as in this case, a factor that made ROCK a big thing. Today that is a whole lot easier, having different (and affordable) methods to promote yourself and yer band. Of course you still get people that tell you in a hardcore vein "BON JOVI is real R'N'R" because they believe it from the DJ or whoever. So to at least bring a bit into this discussion, had those pre '64 bands more marketing back up (i.e. some grease to get played), they would have had more hits as well. And with that, more listeners of course that might also remember them as gamechangers. But I'm talking crap and shutting up. Whoooohooo. RayDanger said:

The Beatles deserve a lot of credit and Little Steven is celebrating that, and not just showing his ignorance.

Got that straight away! Was just riled up on something, I guess. Sorry for dropping stuff in yer topic... kopper said:

That's my point.

I'm not even talking about black rock 'n' roll groups (sorry, guess I should've clarified that)... of course there were many of them that were around years before the Beatles... No, what I'm talking 'bout are the American white teenage groups (and I mean groups as opposed to solo acts, too) that existed prior to the Beatles in America, hence the examples I gave. Those bands had many of the same influences the Beatles had, but didn't form because of the Beatles. That's my point.

In looking up information about rock bands in America just before the Beatles, I found this tidbit of trivia: the 1963 Grammy for best rock and roll recording went to Bent Fabric for "Alley Cat".

When folks make ignorant claims like that it's either that they are trying to be sensational, and thus cementing their status as "expert", or they only know - and are concerned with - mainstream popular culture.

I stick with my tired & worn-out assertion that most folks don't really care too much about music (except in the socially acceptable, "clique-ish" manner of a college student), and even more don't know very much about the vast wealth of recorded music that is available.

I would think a more educated statement would have gone along the lines of "There were millions of Rock 'N' Roll groups throughout the world until The Beatles watered it down to something that parents could dig. Thus they (The Beatles) killed Rock 'N' Roll! You can thank The Beatles for Steely Dan et al."

*edited to note that I don't know Little Steven, nor have I ever heard his radio show. So it's nothing personal - It can't be; I just think that that quote is odd.

Agree with the above posts, there were definitely pre-Beatles rock bands. I don't know the exact year of origination of the term to signify this kind of music, but "rockin' and rollin'" as a euphemism for sex goes back a lot farther than that. Bill Halley did "Rock This Joint" in '52, and the bigger hit "Rock Around The Clock" in ''54, and there are a ton of other examples.

The Beatles on Ed Sullivan may have changed the landscape of pop music and rock-n-roll, but the yard itself was already there, it was just on a small country road instead of a big highway.

I agree...
Even bands like The Pinetoppers were doin' there thing, and I don't think The Beatles changed much about that.

Though I think it was just Little Steven on some personal DJ rant. Most people were probably changed by that date.

I don't know, that's basically my problem with all that quote-ing from experts, it just cuts out a lot of superb people and many more people forge their opinion after that.
Just like Lennon saying: "Before Elvis there was nothing." Which also maybe right for the mainstream explosion of making R'N'R a Pop phenomenon, but also a very subjective view coming from their own learning and experience with getting into R'N'R thru a certain happening in their life. I love the King, but he was not the sum of all raw music back then.

Its totally right what you said, the Beatles might be the club to blow off the shorthair-wig of many square teenagers and make them rockfans finally. But what about all the guys that came before that and were restricted by bullshit-fucked-up-dork-motherfucker social codes like "RACE", not being able to make it into mainstream media, meaning the black rockers??? You know the names!
I'm not trying to shut down the awesome music of the pre-Garageband bands, not for nothing - but saying the Beatles made it all happen is just more than a bit arrogant . And yeah it's not fair at all.

BLUES guys with an immense personal background that went to transform their styles to R'N'R and beyond, a more well known example being Bo Diddley that had a huge influence in forming the R'N'R spririt. That's basically where origination of the music came from for the most part, I believe. Of course the whole time then being a massive throw around of styles and innovation. And it's always the stars that collect the crops for the media and history but that can't be put down in an Esquire article, no?

Little Steven has this quote on his Facebook page: "February 8, 1964, there was not one single rock 'n' roll band in the country. February 9, the Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show. February 10, everyone had one....My life began on February 9, 1964." - Little Steven (quoted in Esquire, Dec 2008) What do you think? I think in general he might be right, but I can think of lots of bands that existed prior to '64... the Wailers, the Sonics, the Pyramids, Paul Revere & the Raiders, etc. While the Beatles appearing on the Ed Sullivan Show no doubt gave a huge shot in the arm to rock 'n' roll in the U.S. (and elsewhere) and helped spur on the garage-band BOOM of '65-'67, I just don't think it's fair to give them all the credit. It's stuff like that that kinda annoys me about Little Steven.

Missouri's own Untamed Youth do a great cover of "Rollerland," too. DammitDave said:

I love Rollerland. That's definately on the list along with misc songs about "tough chicks" and JD violence. I believe one of the teams names will be "bee" oriented. That opens up alot of possibilities. I'll go into fuzz/tremelo overdrive!

July 12th:

VIRUS RADIO:

Seven That Spells - LO I-III
Jack Ross - Mumbles
Willie Wright & His Sparkles - Gibble Gobble
Andre Williams - Sweet Little Pussycat
Edgar Allen & The Po' Boys - Panic Botton
The Gee-Cees - Buzzsaw Twist
Jaguars - Exit 6
Earthworms - Mo' Taters
Charts - For The Birds
Fabulous Raiders - Handclapping Time
Roger & The Gypsies - Pass The Hatchet
Egyptians - Wiped Out
Crescendos - Hawk Walk
Playboys - Whatiz?
Charts - Ooba Gooba
Russ Meyer's Cherry, Harry & Raquel (Cherry Harry And Raquel + South Of The Border)
Sandy Nelson - Hey Joe
Sonny & Cher - The Beat Goes On
Rolling Stones - Paint It Black + Its All Over Now
Rolf Harris - Sun Arise
Lee Hazlewood - The Night Before
Mamas & Papas - California Dreaming
Troggs - Wild Thing
Sooges - TV Eye
MC5 - Ramblin Rose
Misfits - Where Eagles Dare
Goblin - Suspiria
Napalm Death - The Kill

LOWCUT RADIO:

Hunches - Carnival Debris
Mig & Min Ven - Mig & Min Ven
Destruction Unit - In The End
Titmachine - 1989
Times New Viking - RIP Allegory
SSD - Fight Them
Death (detroit) - Keep On Knockin
KGBeasley & The Leather Violence - Texas Leather
Cheveu - A Great Competitor
Digital Leather - He's Minstrel
A-Frames - Experiment
Vivian Girls - Tell The World
Black Randy - Idi Amin
Blade Of The Ripper - Revenge
Ripping Headache - Where Did It Go
Herpes - Hunger
Wrists - MK Ultra
Causa Sui - Portixeddu
Ariel Pink - Trepanated Earth
Gang Green - Sold Out

Just one - the first and only cover I have done so far. Not nearly as interesting as those above, but the band liked it and I was satisfied. (Most of my work is boring corporate design stuff.)

and once again:

congratulations for the good work dr.kopper!

Now that looks great, waaaay cool Kopper! I like the "gamut." kopper said:

Redirects to this page now, and I updated it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network

Feel free to edit/add info that you think it could use. Thanks!

mark young said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk.com

Get editing, boys!!

Redirects to this page now, and I updated it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network Feel free to edit/add info that you think it could use. Thanks! mark young said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk.com

Get editing, boys!!

I agree with Kopper! This is the type of question to which All Answers are Incredibly Wrong, simply because none of us has ever faced anything even remotely similar to the situation described. And worrying about "A Record" (ANY RECORD) would be completely unimaginable at the moment about which we're speaking. Thank goodness we don't have to face THIS in reality.

If pressed into it, though, I might could make a choice or two.

If it was the Desert Island thing... Screw the iPod. Throw it into the lagoon. Grab Ginger and Maryanne by the hair and drag them into your hut. There's no electricity here. Your iPod is alive for the next... what? Two Hours? Maybe?

Zombies are different, though. For one thing, they're not Intentionally Destructive of Anything Other Than Human Flesh, so Power Plants are going to continue to operate. Without an active, involved and ALIVE staff, however, a Coal Burning Power Plant won't last more than about 6 hours (maximum). If you're lucky enough to live within the range of a Nuclear Power Plant, you can probably count on it continuing to work for a few months. Regardless of how long it takes for it to die, You will want to stay the hell away from it for as long as, well..., EVER!

I would probably choose The Rolling Stones' "Exiles on Main Street", which sounds horribly lame and "Rolling Stone Magazine Influenced", but is the only record I can think of that contains all of the variety that I would need to survive a Zombie Holocaust. It caught The Glimmer Twins at their most creative and most messed up moment. It Proves that You Can Do Great Art Under the Influence! Well... Okay. Maybe not that YOU can, but that Someone Could! It's raw without trying or pretending. It Rocks, It Grooves (which could come in handy if there are any surviving females or if there aren't and you become horrifically desperate), and It Twangs. It's not perfect, but then... Neither is living in a Secure Structure in which you are surrounded by Flesh Eating, Formerly Living Friends, Neighbors and Family Members.

Lets face it. Zombies are Dead People. Dead People are made of Dead Flesh. Dead Flesh doesn't last forever. I figure I've got to spend a couple of months (at the most) listening to the same record over and over before the flies have chewed my mortal enemies to tiny bits. Then I can go to any record store I want and take anything I want (although, despite my Lifetime Supply of Makers Mark and Pabst Blue Ribbon, I'll probably just go to a Liquor Store instead)!

Does this make me happy? Not really (Although the fact that I now have access to ALL THE LIQUOR IN THE WORLD certainly keeps me from becoming too despondent). Now I am left to spend the remainder of my days wondering when the next __________ (<--- Insert Band Name Here) record is coming out.

I'll try to get the English version :)

Thanks-sounds like a great read. BLACKCAT69 said:

Yes...he discusses the Birds, the Art Woods, Small Faces/ Faces, Keith Moon, his mother-in-law throwing Keith Richards Joints into the swimming pool...great stuff!